• scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Just because we’re living in a simulation doesn’t mean we are simulated. So perhaps the architects of the simulation can’t simply program our questions away.

      • derek@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 minutes ago

        Not necessarily. You’re correct that we cannot account for intention. Neither can we assert whether we are simulated. Even if we can prove this reality is simulated we cannot be sure if we are part of the simulation or inserted into it (a la The Matrix) from our current position.

  • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 hours ago

    If we’re in a simulation, it’s probably a massive universe-spanning one. We’re just a blip, both within the scale of the space of the universe and within the history of time of the universe. In that case, we’re not important enough for a simulation creator to even care to adjust our capabilities at all. They’re not watching us. We’re not the point of the simulation.

  • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    My best guess: The thought processes required to ponder the possibility of a simulation are too important to the goal of the simulation itself to disable.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Maybe the devs were debating whether it’s possible for a simulated sentient intelligence to figure out it’s in a simulation. What if there was a bet, and the only way to prove other dev wrong was to actually build the simulation and let it run its course. I mean, it’s just a quick little experiment about a single universe in 3D space with linear time.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Reality ia amazing but to value our blissful existence we have to go through a simulation of how horrible the exitance could be. I for exemple am incredibly happy in reality but Taylor swift is an 1 eye, no arms, Afgan orfan in reality… Or just reality Mcdonalds employeeq

      • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        This comment reads like a person who keeps being pulled into previous lives, and started hallucinating they were some monkish writer.

        Are you ok?

  • randomdeadguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Creators don’t have to be all-knowing. Also, because believing this reality is a simulation does not change the rules we live by, there is no difference between the life of a sim-denier and sim-believer. It’s not as if you’d be punished just for [redacted].

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Depends on the structure of the simulation. If it’s general enough then they didn’t specifically plan to have this capacity, it’s just the result of the inputs and constraints of the simulation. If anything it would be beneficial to see an outcome as to the types of intelligence that arise.

  • missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If we weren’t capable of higher reasoning to ask this kind of question, it wouldn’t be a very good simulation, would it?

  • Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Maybe they’re testing to see if and how we prove we’re in a simulation as part of figuring out if they are themselves in one

    Maybe they’re re-creating the circumstances of their own world to test theories that they can apply in the real world, and since they can ponder whether or not they’re in a simulation then we have to be able to as well or we’d act too differently

    Maybe it’s a total accident. They’re actually studying something over in Andromeda and we’re just a funny accident created as a byproduct of the rules of the simulation

  • explodicle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s not like my Conway’s Game of Life creatures can ever escape their petri dish. I’m so zoomed out that I wouldn’t even notice if they were intelligent.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    So instead of a simulation, maybe we’re living inside of some other type of thing we’re hard-wired to be unable to even think of—and maybe “simulation” is the idea we’re hard-wired to replace it with.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I like this observation a lot. Because I was going to say that if we couldn’t conceive of a simulation, we’d probably just speculate about the closest thing we could imagine.

    • lath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Replace simulation with book where only a framework is defined and and the plot is built within the set rules.

    • Ogmios
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Like a limited ‘fake’ world edifice structured through legal fictions like money, debt and contracts, which attempts to assert that it is significantly more powerful and pervasive than it actually is, through stories like The Matrix, to instill a sense of hopelessness upon anyone who even considers not submitting to it.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    man I can’t find the dilbert where dogbert makes one and when dilbert asks something like this he says he programmed them to distrust intelligent people.